productivity environmental preference survey (peps) of

San Jose State University San Jose State University

SJSU ScholarWorks SJSU ScholarWorks

Master's Projects Master's Theses and Graduate Research

5-1-2009

Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) of Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) of

Undergraduate Nursing Students - A Generational Perspective Undergraduate Nursing Students - A Generational Perspective

Susana Machado San Jose State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_projects

Part of the Other Nursing Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Machado, Susana, "Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) of Undergraduate Nursing Students - A Generational Perspective" (2009). Master's Projects. 786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.ypht-wsq8 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_projects/786

This Master's Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_projects

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_projects?utm_source=scholarworks.sjsu.edu%2Fetd_projects%2F786&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/729?utm_source=scholarworks.sjsu.edu%2Fetd_projects%2F786&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_projects/786?utm_source=scholarworks.sjsu.edu%2Fetd_projects%2F786&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF NURSING

MASTER'S PROGRAM PROJECT OPTION (PLAN B) PROJECT SIGNATURE FORM

STUDENT NAME Susana Machado

SEMESTER ENROLLED Spring 2009

TITLE OF PROJECT PradudiYity EoYiraomeotal Prefereo{!e Survey (PEPS) of Undergraduate Nursing Students- A Generational Perspective

NAME OF JOURNAL Jomnal of P1 ofessional Nm sing

The project and the manuscript have been successfully completed and meet the standards of the School ofNursing University. The project demonstrates the application of professional knowledge, clinical expertise, and scholarly thinking. An abstract of the project and two copies of the manuscript are a~ed.

~~ Yn · ~ .> ), .-loj

ADVISOR'S SIGNAURE

~~ ADVISO 'S GNAURE DATE

Please submit the form to the Graduate Coordinator. Attach abstract, two copies of the manuscript, and the documentation of submission to the journal (i.e., postal receipt or email).

From: Journal of Professional Nursing Subject: Submission Confirmation

Date: May 22, 2009 7:53:40 AM PDT To:

Dear Susana Machado,

Your submission entitled "Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) of Undergraduate Nursing Students -A Generational Perspective" has been received by Journal of Professional Nursing

You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is

Your username is:: Your password is:

Your manuscript will be given a reference number once an Editor has been assigned.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Kind regards,

Elsevier Editorial System Journal of Professional Nursing

Susana Machado RN, BSN, MS (Candidate) Phyllis Connolly PhD., PMHCNS-BC

Toby Adelman RN, PhD.

Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) of Undergraduate Nursing Students

- A Generational Perspective

Abstract

A change in the generational demographics of college students is occurring throughout the

United States. By 2012, the number ofMillennial students, those born from 1982 to 2003, will

jump from 44 percent to 7 5 percent of the total college enrollment. It has been suggested that their

methods of learning are different from those of previous generations. The purpose of this study

was to identify and compare individual productivity and learning style preferences of

undergraduate nursing students that fall into the Generation X and Millennia! age cohort. Using

the Dunn & Dunn Learning Style Model and the Productivity Environmental Preferences Survey

(PEPS), the study examined the conditions under which an adult learner is most likely to achieve

the highest level of productivity and learning. Seventy-three undergraduate nursing students in

their junior year of college were surveyed on twenty different stimuli subscales. Overall results

did not demonstrate strong learning style preferences in either group and demonstrated more

similarities than differences. Four areas of slightly stronger preferences were noted: Generation X

preference for learning from authority figures verses peer learning and the need for frequent

snacking for increased productivity and learning. Millennia} students demonstrated a greater

preference for wanting a more structured learning environment and having afternoon and evenings

as the time of their highest level of energy for learning more difficult content. Using at-test and

2-tailed significance analysis showed a statistical significant difference between the generational

cohorts in the subscales referring to "Authority oriented learner", "Time of day" and "Afternoon".

Understanding the academic productivity and preferred learning style preferences of these two

groups is important for both curriculum planning and policies to help increase student retention.

Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Journal of Professional Nursing

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number:

Title: Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) of Undergraduate Nursing Students -

A Generational Perspective

Article Type: Research Article

Keywords: Millennia! generation, Generation X, learning styles, learning preferences, nursing

education, nursing research, nursing students, Productivity Environmental Preference Survey,

PEPS, Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model, Strauss and Howe Generational Theory

Corresponding Author: Miss Susana Machado, MSN

Corresponding Author's Institution:

First Author: Susana Machado, RN, BSN, MS (Candidate)

Order of Authors: Susana Machado, RN, BSN, MS (Candidate); Phyllis M Connolly, PhD,

PMHCNS-BC; Toby Adelman, RN, PhD

Cover Letter

In consideration of the Journal of Professional Nursing's reviewing and editing

my submission, the authors undersigned transfers, assigns and otherwise convey all

copyright ownership to W.B. Saunders Company in the event that such work is published

in the Journal of Professional Nursing. The authors declare that the manuscript is

original, has not been submitted to or is not under consideration by another publication,

has not be previously published in any format, including electronic, and contains no

matter that is, to the best of the authors' knowledge, libelous or unlawful, or that infringes

upon any US copyright.

Date: 5/ JLI J 0~

~~A- H~~ Susana Machado, RN, BSN, MS (candidate)

Phyllis M. Connolly, PhD, PMHCNS-BC

Toby Adelman, RN, PhD

PEPS of Undergraduate Nursing Students 1

Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) of Undergraduate Nursing Students

A Generational Perspective

Susana Machado, RN, BSN, MS (candidate)

Phone:

Email:

Phyllis M. Connolly, PhD, PMHCNS-BC

Professor

School ofNursing, San Jose State University

1 Washington Sqare, San Jose, CA 95192-0057

Email:

Toby Adelman, RN, PhD

Associate Professor

Email:


Author Note

This research was supported in part by funds from the Betty and Gordon Moore

Foundation, and San Jose State University Tower Foundation- Lena Beatrice Hirsh Nursing

Scholarship Endowment in the amount of$ 550.00. I would like to acknowledge the following

people for their contributions: the educators who allocated class time and all the participants who

took the PEPS; Steve Aquino, the statistician who helped analyze and better understand the raw

data; Dr. Mark Crider, Dr. Kathy Abriam-Y ago, Dr. Marian Yoder, Dr. Deepika Goyal, and Dr.

Phyllis M. Connolly who all helped me develop the research skills necessary to complete this

project; Dr. Diane Skiba and Dr. Pamala Cox-Otto, who's presentation at a conference I attended

spurred my curiosity into the subject of this manuscript; all my colleagues in the Betty and

~ Gordon Moore Foundation Fellowships program, my family and Carlos Cruz, for all their

support and encouragement throughout the entire process.

PEPS of Undergraduate Nursing Students 3 Abstract

Generational demographics of college students are changing nationally. It has been

suggested that the methods of learning of the Millennia} students (born 1982 to 2003) are

different from those of previous generations. The purpose of this study was to identify and

compare individual productivity and learning style preferences of undergraduate nursing students

in the Generation X and Millennia} age cohort. Using the Dunn & Dunn Learning Style Model

and Productivity Environmental Preferences Survey (PEPS), the study examined the conditions

under which an adult learner is most likely to achieve the highest level of productivity and

learning. Using data frequencies and t-test with two-tail significance, subscales 10 "Authority

oriented learner'' (p = 0.052), 17 "Time of day'' (p = 0.040), and 19 "Afternoon" (p = 0.040)

showed statistical significance. Other areas of stronger preferences were noted: Generation X

~ preference for learning from authority figures verses peer learning and the need for frequent

snacking for increased productivity and learning. Millennia! students demonstrated a greater

preference for wanting a more structured learning environment and having afternoon and

evenings as the time of their highest level of energy for learning more difficult content.

Understanding these preferences is important for effective teaching methods.

~-PEPS of Undergraduate Nursing Students 4

A change in the generational demographics in college students is occurring. According to

the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Coomes & DeBard, 2004), approximately

6.9 million Millenials (born from 1982 to 2003) were registered to attend college and universities

around the United States in 2002, and by 2012 the number is anticipated to increase to 13.3

million. This will increase the percentage of millennia! students attending college from 44.2

percent of total enrollment to 75 percent (p. 11-13). According to Strauss and Howe (1991), each

generation comes equipped with their own " ... generational persona recognized and determined

by (1) common age location, (2) common beliefs and behavior, and (3) perceived membership in

a common generation" (Coomes & DeBard, 2004, p. 8). This anticipated change in generational

demographics and persona in Higher Education may create an environment ripe for

dissatisfaction and conflict from all participants due to different generational expectations, values

and goals (Coomes & DeBard, 2004).

This shift in generational demographics can be further explored in undergraduate nursing

classrooms. Baby Boomers (born from 1943 to 1960) and Generation X students (born from

1961 to 1981 ), which have in the past been a majority in the classroom, are now sharing the

classroom with Millennials in greater numbers. This great generational transition has placed a

spotlight on nursing education since the majority of educators are predominantly from the Baby

Boomer and Silent generation (born 1925 to 1942), while the students are from the Baby

Boomer, Generation X and Millennia] age cohorts (Walker, Martin, White, Elliott, Norwood,

Mangum, et al., 2006, p. 371). If there is a distinction between different generations' preferred

learning styles and how they process information, then a reevaluation of the current curriculum is


warranted to potentially create an environment that will recruit and retain newer nursing students

for a successful transition into the nursing profession.

Purpose and Design

The purpose of this study was to identify individual productivity and learning style

preferences of undergraduate nursing students that fall into the Generation X, and Millennia! age

cohort. The study examined the conditions under which an adult learner is most likely to achieve

the highest level of productivity and learning. A quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional survey

approach was used in this study to survey undergraduate nursing students at a Public University

in Northern California. The answer to the following research question was sought:

What are the individual productivity and learning style preferences of Generation X and

Millennials in an undergraduate nursing program as measured by the Productivity

Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS)?

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of the study is based on two different theories, one a social

science and the other an educational model. The assertion that differences in learning styles affect

how the Ieamer looks at and processes information is not new in the literature (Dunn & Griggs,

1998a; Dunn & Griggs, 2000). Dunn & Burk (2006) identify learning styles as " ... the way in

which each learner begins to concentrate on, process, absorb, and retain new and difficult

information. The interaction of these elements occurs differently in everyone" (p. 2). By

understanding Strauss & Howe's (1991) generational theory and its impact on generational

persona, it is a logical leap that this generational persona may impact and be impacted by the

learning environment and the learners' preferred learning styles.


The concept of generational procession has been around for centuries. It is the sharing of

the same experiences that contributes to a generation's unique worldview, a generational

persona, which remains a powerful and influential force in their lives (Coomes & DeBard, 2004).

"The very term birth cohort was not coined until 1863 (by the French sociologist Emile Littre ),

and the concept attracted little attention over the next hundred years" (Strauss & Howe, 1991, p.

49). The publication of their 1991 book Generations, followed by The Fourth Turning in 1997

has allowed Strauss and Howe to popularize the generational concept in its current form with a

historical perspective of cycles. Strauss & Howe's (1991) generational theory suggests that

American history can be viewed through a framework of repeating cycles of attitudes and

approaches to life. Observing trends and events in history helps in identifying the generational

cohorts. Strauss and Howe ( 1991, 1997) hypothesize that generations can be understood and

viewed in four cycles. These four cycles usually span the length of a human life, about 80 years,

or 20 years per cycle. They further hypothesize that although each generation that emerges into

society, either into the workplace or in the educational setting, different terms of ethics, values,

work attitudes and general worldview are seen causing regular and predictable cyclical patterns.

They identify the four generations as follows: Silent, born between 1925 and 1942; Baby

Boomers, born between 1943 and 1960; Generation X, born between 1961 and 1981; and

Millennials, born from 1982 to 2003 (Strauss & Howe, 1997).

Although there are several ways of measuring learning styles, the Dunn and Dunn model

and instrument was selected, primarily because of the multidimensional characteristics of the

model (Dunn & Griggs, 1998a; Price Systems, Inc., 2004). The Dunns theorize that learning

style is made up of both biological and developmental characteristics that make up the learning

\r~ PEPS of Undergraduate Nursing Students 7

environment (Dunn & Griggs, 2000, p. 8). Although it appears to be a theory based on

observation, Dunn & Griggs (2000) claim, " ... its roots can be traced back to two distinct learning

theories-cognitive-style theory and brain-lateralization theory" (p. 9). Cognitive-Style theory

suggests that individuals have the ability to process information in different manners on the basis

of either learned or intrinsic traits (Dunn & Griggs, 2000). Brain-lateralization theory is based on

the idea that the two separate hemispheres of the brain are responsible for two separate functions,

the left-brain for verbal-sequential abilities and the right brain for emotions-spatial processing

(Dunn & Griggs, 2000).

The common assumptions of the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model are that: ( 1) most

individuals can learn, (2) different instructional environments, resources, and approaches respond

to different learning-style strengths, (3) everyone has strengths, but different people have very

different strengths, (4) individual instructional preferences exist and can be measured reliably (as

sited in Burke, Guatello, et al., 1999/2000), (5) giving responsive environments, resources, and

approaches, students attain statistically higher achievement and attitude-test scores in congruent,

rather then in incongruent treatments (as sited in Dunn & Dunn, 1992, 1993) (Dunn, 2006; Dunn

& Griggs, 2000, p. 11 ). The theory consists of 20 different elements that, when classified, reveal

that students learning and productivity are affected by their environment, emotions, social

inclinations, physical characteristics and psychological inclinations (Dunn & Burke, 2006).

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following terms have been defined:


• Generation: "Defined as a cohort-group whose length approximates the span of a phase of

life and whose boundaries are fixed by peer personality" (Strauss & Howe, 1991, p. 60;

Coomes & Debard, 2004, p. 8).

• Peer persona: Defined as "generational persona recognized and determined by ( 1)

common age location, (2) common beliefs and behavior, and (3) perceived membership

in a common generation" (Strauss & Howe, 1991,p. 64).

• Baby Boomers: Baby boomers are defined as those individuals born between the years of

1943 to 1960 (Strauss & Howe, 1991; Coomes & DeBard, 2004).

• Generation X: Generation Xers are defined as those individuals born between the years

of 1961 to 1981 (Strauss & Howe, 1991; Coomes & DeBard, 2004).

• Millennia! generation: Millennials are defined as those individuals born between the years

of 1982 to 2003 (Strauss & Howe, 1991; Coomes & DeBard, 2004). The term was first

used to describe the results of an ABC News survey portraying the youngest generation in

the United States (Wendover, 2002).

• Learning style: "the way individuals begin to concentrate on, process, internalize, and

remember new and difficult academic information or skills" (Dunn & Griggs, 1998a, p.

11).

• Dunn & Dunn Learning-Style Model: A model which describes learning style preferences

by:

o Environmental Stimuli Preferences = Sound versus silence, bright light versus soft

light, cool versus warm temperatures, and informal versus formal setting design;


o Emotional Stimuli Preferences = Motivation, persistence, responsibility

(conformity versus non-conformity), and preference for structure versus choice;

o Sociological Stimuli Preferences = Alone versus with peers, peer/team, adult, and

varied social interactions versus structured interactions;

o Physiological stimuli preferences = Perceptual strengths (auditory, visual, tactile,

and/or kinesthetic), intake (snacking while concentrating), time-of-day energy

level, and mobility needs;

o Psychological Stimuli Preferences = Global/ Analytic, hemispheJ;icity, and

impulsive/reflective (Dunn & Griggs, 1998a, p. 9).

Literature Review

Learning Styles and Generations

The implications of Generational Theory on nursing education are paramount. How do

you teach the 19-year old Millennia] and still keep the 30 year old Generation Xer and the 48

year old Baby Boomer engaged in the same learning? The paucity in nursing literature regarding

generational diversity in nursing is mostly directed towards administration and staff development

(Stuenkel, Cohen & de Ia Cuesta, 2005; Hu, Herrick & Hodgin, 2004; Palese, Pantali &Saiani,

2006; Stewart, 2006; Hessler, & Ritchie, 2006; Wieck, 2003; Wieck, Prydun & Walsh, 2002;

Smola & Sutton, 2002). An extensive review was done for learning style preferences of

Generation X and Millenials in the following databases: Academic Research Premier; Eric via

Ebsco; CINAHL; Medline; Education; Education Research Complete; PsyciNFO; Wiley

Interscience; PubMed; Blackwell Synergy; Sociological Abstracts; and Social Science. The

following key words were used: generational issues; generation; Generation X; Generation Y;

PEPS of Undergraduate Nursing Students 1 0

Millennials; Net Generation; college student expectations; generational theory; generational

differences; student demographic; learning patterns; student expectations; and teaching methods.

Only two empirical studies were found on educational preferences and learning styles of

millennials (Walker, Martin, White, Elliott, Norwood, Mangum, et al., 2006; Borges, Manuel,

Elam & Jones, 2006). Most information found in the literature was on generational

characteristics written by industry leaders such as Prensky (2001), Tapscott (1998), and Oblinger

& Oblinger (2005) and recommendations for teaching based on those identified characteristics.

Some international studies (Abu-Moghli, Khalaf, Halabi & Wardam, 2005; Duff, Johnston, &

Laschinger, 1992; Sutcliffe, 1993) were located that identified preferred learning styles ofBaby

Boomers to Generation Xers but little was found in relation to the preferences of Millennials.

One empirical study performed in Canada looked at the popular claim that generations' have

different basic human values. They found that Generation Xers scored higher on Openness to

change and lower on Conservation values. Millennials also scored higher on both, but not by

much from the Baby Boomers and the Matures (Lyons, Duxbury, & Higgins, 2007).

An individual's learning style generally identifies how the Ieamer will approach the

presented material and how they may profit differently from similar types of instructional

delivery (Dunn, 2006). Several studies focused on learning styles of students from Baby

Boomers and Generation Xers. A study done by Brown & Fritz (200 1) noted, " ... learning styles,

student-teacher interactions, and classroom behaviors of Generation X and Baby Boomers are

different enough to warrant different teaching methods" (p. 58). Interviews with 46 community

college students identified Generation X students to be more visual learners and to need a more

visually engaged component in the classroom than the traditional lecture method. When bored or


disinterested by the material, students tended to start talking to other classmates, doing other

work in the classroom not related to that particular class, or just not showing up for class (p. 59-

60). Understanding these generational differences can help faculty to adjust their teaching styles

and use various strategies to best meet their students' learning style.

Learning Styles Theory: Instrument Selection

The body of knowledge on learning styles and its corresponding theories are too

numerous to allow for a full comprehensive review. In her review of the learning styles field

Hadfield (2006) identified" ... no less than seventy-one different theories ... " (p. 367). Each

person is said to have learning style preferences, but those preferences vary significantly from

person to person (Dunn & Griggs, 2000). According to Hadfield (2006), learning styles can be

categorized into five groups, from those who consider learning styles to be more fixed to those

who consider them to be mutable, giving the learner an option to move between different

learning styles. The Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model, the learning style model used for this

research, has an extensive and strong research base three decades in length (Lovelace, 2005;

Kavale & LeFever, 2007; Dunn & Griggs, 1998a; Dunn & Griggs, 2000; Price Systems Inc.,

2004 ). There is still some debate as to validity of the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model after

three decades of strong research foundation, and the debate is primarily based on Lovelace's

meta-analysis (Kavale & LeFever, 2007). Kavale & LeFever (2007) question Lovelace's

fmdings due to noted problems in interpretation of effect size and narrow focus on a single model

which in tum limited the available literature base for analysis. A literature search identified 78

studies that looked at learning styles in the field ofhealthcare, 53 of which were specific to

nursing (Dunn & Griggs, 1998a). In these studies, the three learning style instruments most


commonly used were Kolb' s Learning Style Inventory, followed by Dunn and Dunn's

Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS), and Gregorc's Style Delineator (Dunn &

Griggs, 1998a; Griggs, Griggs, Dunn, & Ingham, 1994). Fifty-six of those studies were

correlation in design, exploring the learning style differences between non-traditional and

traditional nursing students, freshmen versus senior students, or correlations of learning styles to

the risk of student termination of studies (Dunn & Griggs, 1998a; Griggs et al., 1994).

Reliability and validity of PEPS is derived from thirty years of extensive and strong

research (Lovelace, 2005). The findings of two primary nursing research studies confirmed

reliability and validity of its use for baccalaureate nursing students (Billings & Cobb, 1992;

LaMothe et al.,1991). Construct validity was established in all20 subscales except for the

"afternoon subscale" (Billings, 1991; LaMothe et al, 1991 ). The highest level for construct

validity obtained was for environmental and physical subscales with the lowest reliabilities being

psychosocial and physical subscales (Billings, 1991; LaMothe, et al, 1991 ). These results on

construct validity were similar to those obtained using PEPS on college students with majors

other than nursing (Billings, 1991 ). Thus the PEPS was selected for this study.

Methods

Design and Sample

This quantitative study used a descriptive survey design to identify the individual

productivity and learning style preferences of Generation X and Millennials in an undergraduate

nursing program. The sample included 73 undergraduate college juniors enrolled in their second

semester of a nursing baccalaureate program.

Setting


The setting for this study was a large, ethnically diverse, metropolitan State University

located in Northern California. This University's School of Nursing offers a generic

baccalaureate undergraduate degree, an advanced-placement RN-to-BS degree, and master's

degrees in nursing in multiple options. The generic undergraduate baccalaureate program admits

70-80 sophomore students every semester to complete a 3-year curriculum.

Instrument

The Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS), a broad learning style

instrument was utilized for this study and provided information on learning environment

preferences in five areas: environmental, emotion, sociological, physiological, and psychological

(Price, 1996; Dunn & Griggs, 2000; Dunn & Griggs, 1998a; Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1982). The

PEPS survey consists of 1 00 five-point Likert scale questions that help identify patterns of

learning and preferred learning environments that ultimately affect student productivity and

learning. Each pattern is further refined into four distinct groups of 20 measurable variables that

make up one's learning style preference (Billings, 1991; Price, 1996). Each subscale has a

standard score that ranges from 20 to 80 with scores falling 40 or less or 60 or more in a specific

variable identifying it as important to the participant when studying (Price, 1996). Individuals

having scores that fall between 40 and 60 are varied with respect to how much that variable is

important to them in their productivity and learning (Price, 1996). Refer to Table 1 for the listing

of the variables measured with PEPS.

Data Collection

After the university's Protection of Human Subjects Institutional Review Board and the

School of Nursing's Program Evaluation and Research Committee granted permission to conduct


the study, the data collection procedure was implemented. The survey was distributed to all

undergraduate college juniors enrolled in their second semester of the nursing baccalaureate

program during the Fall 2008 Medical-Surgical theory course. A cover letter and written

informed consent was distributed to each participant along with a verbal description detailing the

purpose and importance of the study and study confidentiality. The Productivity Environmental

Preferences Survey (PEPS) was then distributed to all students willing to participate in the

research along with a #2 pencil provided by the researcher. The questions were answered on a 5-

point Likert scale from strongly agreed to strongly disagree. The survey was taken in the

presence of the researcher immediately after the informed consent was given and took

approximately 20 to 30 minutes for the participants to complete.

Data Analysis

The completed inventories were forwarded to Price Systems, Inc. in Lawrence, Kansas

for analysis. Price Systems compiled an individual computerized profile of each participant's

responses to the PEPS along with a Group and Subscale summary. The demographic data of age,

gender and place of birth was cross-referenced with the survey items. Data frequencies were

extrapolated from the results received from Price Systems, Inc. and a t-test with two-tailed

significance was run on the 20 individual subscales to detect patterns and examine similarities

and differences among the following age cohorts: Millennials (18 to 26 year olds) and Generation

X (27 to 4 7 year olds ). This statistical method was used because of its ability to compare

whether the average difference between two groups is really significant or if it is due instead to

random chance.

Results

~~


Demographics

A total of 73 undergraduate nursing students were originally surveyed. Out of those 73

participants sampled, 52 completed a usable survey providing a 71% response rate. Twenty-three

percent (n = 12) of the final participants represented Generation X, and 77% (n = 40) represented

Millennials. Regarding gender, 85% (n = 44) were female and 15% (n = 8) were male. Seventy

nine percent (n = 41) of the students in the fmal sample were born in the United States, 19% (n =

10) foreign born, and 2% (n = 1) did not specify.

Learning Style Profile

Table 1 depicts the 20 individual subscale frequencies per age cohort, identifying the

mean and the standard deviation. Each subscale has a standard score that ranges from 20 to 80

with scores falling 40 or less or 60 or more in a specific variable identifying it as important to the

participant when studying (Price, 1996). Individuals having scores that fall between 40 and 60

are varied with respect to how much that variable is important to them in their productivity and

learning (Price, 1996). The data frequencies depicted in Table 1 did not demonstrate strong

learning style preferences in either group and demonstrated more similarities than differences.

Four areas of slightly stronger preferences were noted: Generation X preference for learning from

authority figures verses peer learning and the need for frequent snacking for increased

productivity and learning. Millennia] students demonstrated a greater preference for wanting a

more structured learning environment and having afternoon and evenings as the time of their

highest level of energy for learning more difficult content.

As noted in Table 2, of the 20 t-tests, only the subscales 10 "Authority-oriented learner"

(p = 0.052), 17 "Time of day'' (p = 0.040), and 19 "Afternoon" (p = 0.048) showed a statistically


significant difference between the generational cohorts. It is widely accepted that a Two-tailed

Significance result ofp = 0.05 or lower justifies a claim of statistical significance (Campbell,

2004). The "Authority-oriented Ieamer" subscale captures the individual preference for learning

from an authority figure for increased productivity and learning (Price, 1996). The "Time of

day'' subscale refers to the time of day in which the participant has the most available energy

level and fmds it most productive. The "Time of day'' identifies either morning or evening as

times of the highest energy level for participants, while the "Afternoon" subscale identifies

afternoons as such (Price, 1996).

There were not enough participants within each cohort to provide meaningful comparison

in the area of gender learning style preference. The same limitation holds true when comparing

learning style preferences of foreign-born and U.S. born participants due to the small sample

size.

Limitations

Project limitations consisted of a small, non-random sample size, as well as participant

characteristics, and instrument issues. Sample size is often a concern in nursing education

research due to small class sizes in most institutions. With a small sample size there are

limitations in accurately identifying the effects of age cohort on learning style preferences.

Another limitation is the homogeneity of the sample in the study as the participants came from

one college in an urban area in a western region of the United States. The distribution of gender

is also a noted limitation since a large portion of the participants were female with only 15% of

the sample size being male.


There were also issues with the instrument. Although the PEPS survey appeared to be the

most appropriate and inclusive instrument for measuring individual preferred learning styles and

environmental influences that affect productivity, the PEPS survey was not originally created to

account for generational variables and their affects on learning style preferences. This limitation

may have produced results not reflective of the affect of the generational age cohort variable on

individual preferred learning environments.

Evaluation of participants' current computer literacy and use of information technology

was not evaluated by the researcher. It has been asserted by experts in both neuroscience and

sociology, that the current explosion of digital technology not only is changing the way we live

and communicate but also is rapidly and profoundly altering our brains and how we process

information and learn (Prensky, 2001; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Small &

Vorgan, 2008). Since information regarding computer literacy and the use of information

technology was not collected, it is impossible to determine if this variable had any influence on

the results obtained.

Discussion I Implications for Nursing Education

As evidenced by the results obtained, there appears to be more similarities between

Generation X and Millenials than previously anticipated. This is especially true when looking at

learning style preferences and self identified environmental preferences for productivity of the

participants of this study. Standard deviations ranging anywhere from 4 to 14 points from the

mean were noted in all measured subscales, confirming the presence of multiple learning styles

and environmental preferences among the students in this one nursing theory course. This


fmding lends to current recommendation of using multiple modes of teaching to engage students

through auditory, visual, tactile and kinesthetic ways.

New college students, who have had 12 years to acclimate to the expectations and

teaching styles of primary and secondary education, can sometimes fmd themselves lacking the

appropriate tools for a successful transition into college life. Nursing education should explore

providing undergraduate nursing students with a comprehensive learning style assessment to help

better identify their preferred learning strengths and individual environments that promote

productivity. The obtained results would allow for each student to become aware of his or her

own learning style strengths and ultimately use those strengths for better academic achievement

and ultimately increase student retention within the nursing program.

Two of the three subscales that showed a statistical difference related to the preferred

time of day students were most productive and efficient at task completion. Time of day energy

levels vary greatly from person to person. Some students may find themselves more attentive

and mentally clear during the early morning hours, while others may fall somewhere else during

the 24-hour day. Research has shown that accommodating time of day preferences usually

results in higher grade-point average and improved academic performance (Dunn & Griggs,

2007; Dunn & Griggs, 1998b ). On average, for about 30% of students time of day preferences

are not a critical variable, but for the remaining 70%, they are able to concentrate better on new

and difficult academic material at specific times during the day (Dunn & Griggs, 2007; Dunn &

Griggs, 1998b ). The study fmdings confirm that there is a notable difference between Generation

X and Millennia!.


The third subscale that showed statistical significance pertained to students' preference to

learn from an authority figure versus peer learning. With increasing focus on student centered

curriculum and active learning through small group and team based activities, students' increased

preference for an authority figure present while learning shows the perceived importance of the

educator role in the learning process. Accommodating this student preference does not mean

changing the curriculum to reduce frequency of team, peer based, small group and individual

learning. By doing such a thing, students may be hindered in their ability to grow when presented

with different situations requiring learning styles outside of their comfort zone (Thompson &

Crutchlow, 1993).

Recommendations for Future Research

The findings of this study suggest future research in the following areas:

1. Replication of this research with a larger, randomly selected, and more diverse sample,

representing more than just one institution and one geographical area.

2. Further exploration into the relationship between learning style preferences and learning

environments that promote productivity in relation to different age cohorts.

3. Tool development to measure generational nuances in respect to learning style preferences

and environments the promote productivity.

Conclusion

Great emphasis has recently been placed on teaching nurse educators and educational

institutions the appropriate skills to teach to the new generation, the Millennials. Numerous

resources have been made available to help transition this new group of students into higher

education for greater academic success. Generational and Learning theories have postulated that


by recognizing patterns, we can better understand and assist in the transition. By looking at

learning style preferences and preferred learning environment for this particular group of

undergraduate nursing students, more similarities than differences were noted. But could the

changes that have been reported and noted in the new Millennia! student be just a matter of

expectation and not a matter of generation? Further research with updated tools to measure and

quantify possible undetermined variables will need to be explored.


References

Abu-Moghli, F. A., Khalaf, I. A., Halabi, J. 0., & Wardam, L.A. (2005). Jordanian

baccalaureate nursing students' perception of their learning styles. International Council

of Nurses, , International Nursing Review, 52, 39-45.

Billings, D. M. (1991). Assessing learning styles using a computerized learning style inventory.

Computers in Nursing, 9(3), 121-125.

Billings, D. M., & Cobb, K. L. (1992). Effects oflearning-style preferences, attitudes, and GPA

on learner achievement using computer-assisted interactive video-disc instruction.

Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(1}, 12-16.

Borges, N.J., Manuel, R. S., Elam, C. L., & Jones, B. J. (2006). Comparing millennia} and

generation x medical students at one medical school. Academic Medicine, 81 (6), 571-

576.

Brown, L. H., & Fritz, K. 0. (Spring/2001). The x factor: Teaching strategies for generation x.

Michigan Commuity College Journal, 53-66.

Burke, K., Guastello, F., Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Beasley, M., Gemake, J., Sinatra, R., &

Lewthwaite, B. (1999/2000). Relationship(s) between global-format and analytic-format

learning-style assessments based on the Dunn and Dunn Model. National Forum of

Applied Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 76-96.

Campbell, M. (2004). Two-tailed tests and a statistical significance at 0.05: What do they mean?

Midwifery, 20, 142-143.

Coomes, M., & DeBard, R. (2004). Serving the millennia! generation: New direction for student

services. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass Inc.


Duff, V., Johnstron, N., & Laschinger, H. (1992). Learning styles of Chinese nursing faculty

and career choice preferences. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 229-233.

Dunn, R. (2006). The Dunn and Dunn learning-style model and its theoretical cornerstone.

Retrieved May 6, 2008 from: htto://www.learningstyles.net/

Dunn, R., & Burke, K. (2006). Learning style: The clue to you! Retrieved May 4, 2008

from: http://www.learningstyles.net/

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual/earning

styles: Practical approaches for grades 3-6. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning

styles: Practical approaches for grades 7-12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. (1998a). Learning styles and the nursing profession. New York:

NLNPress.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. (1998b). Multicultural and learning style: Teaching and counseling

adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeper Publishers.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. (2000). Practical approaches to using learning style in higher

education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. (2007). What if?: Promising practices for improving schools. Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1982). Productivity environmental preference survey.

Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.

Griggs, D., Griggs, S. A., Dunn, R., & Ingham, J. (1994). Accommodating nursing students'

diverse learning styles. Nurse Educator, 19(6), 41-44.

..


Hadfield, J. (2006). Teacher education and trainee learning style. RELC Journal, 37, 367-386.

Hessler, K., & Ritchie, H. (2006). Recruitment and retention of novice faculty. Journal of

Nursing Education, 45(5), 150-154.

Hu, J., Herrick, C., & Hodgin, K. A. (2004). Managing the multigenerational nursing team. The

Health Care Manager, 23(4), 334-340.

Johnson, S. (2006). Everything bad is good for you: Today's popular culture is actually making

us smarter. New York, NY; Riverhead Books.

Kavale, K. A., & LeFever, G. B. (2007). Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences:

Critique of Lovelace meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 101 (2), 94-97.

LaMothe, J., Billings, D. M., Belcher, A., Cobb, K., Nice, A., & Richardson, V. (1991).

Reliability and validity of the productivity environmental preference survey (PEPS).

Nurse Educator, 16(4), 30-35.

Lovelace, M. K. (2005). Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn and Dunn

model. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 176-183.

Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2007). An empirical assessment of generational

differences in basic human values. Psychological Reports, 101,339-352.

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. EDUCASE.

Retrieved 3/22/08 from: http:/ /www.educause.edu/ir/librarvlpdf/pub71 0 1.pdf

Palesce, A., Pantali, G., & Saiani, L. (2006). The management of a multigenerational nursing

team with differing qualifications: A qualitative study. The health Care Manager, 25(2),

173-193.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved

.•


3/22/08 from: http://www .marcprenskv.com/writing/default.asp

Price, G. E. (1996). Productivity environmental preference survey: An inventory for the

identification of individual adult learning style preferences in a working and learning

environment (PEPS Manual). Lawrence, KS; Price Systems, Inc.

Price Systems, Inc. (2004). Research on learning styles. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from:

http:/ /learn.humanesources.com/research.html

Small, G., & Vorgan, G. (2008). iBrain: Surviving the technological alteration of the modern

mind New York, NY; Harper Collins Publishers.

Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work

values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363-382.

Stewart, D. (2006). Generational mentoring. The Journal of Continuing Education In Nursing,

37(3), 113-120.

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America's.future, 1584 to 2069.

New York, NY: William Morrow and Co., Inc.

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1997). The Fourth Turning: What the cycles of history tell us about

America's next rendezvous with destiny. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

Stuenkel, D. L., Cohen, J., & de Ia Cuesta, K. (2005). The multigenerational nursing work force:

Essential differences in perception of work environment. Journal of Nursing

Administration, 35(5), 283-285.

Sutcliffe, L. (1993). An investigation into whether nurses change their learning style according

to subject area studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 647-658.

Tapscott, D. ( 1998). Growing up digital: The rising of the net generation. New York, NY:

.• ..

\._pi


McGraw Hill.

Thompson, C., & Crutchlow, E. (1993). Learning style research: A critical review of the

literature and implications for nursing education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 9(1),

34-40.

Walker, J.T., Martin, T., White, J., Elliott, R., Norwood, A., Mangum, C., & Haynie, L. (2006).

Generational (age) differences in nursing students' preferences for teaching methods.

Journal of Nursing Education, vol45(9), 371-374.

Wendover, R. W. (2002). From Ricky & Lucy to Beavis & Butthead: Leading the new

generations. Aurora, CO: The Center for Generational Studies, Inc.

Wieck, K. L. (2003). Faculty for the millennium: Changes needed to attract the emerging

workforce into nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(4), 151-158.

Wieck, K. L., Prydun, M., & Walsh, T. (2002). What the emerging workforce wants in

its leaders. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34(3), 283-88.

..

PEPS of Undergraduate Nursing Students 28 Table 1

PEPS 20 Subscale Means for Generation X (n = 12) and Millennials (n = 40)

PEPS Subscale COHORT n Mean Std. Deviation

SCALE1 NOISE LEVEL 1 GENERATION X 12 54.67 10.526

2 MILLENNIAL 40 49.60 9.125

SCALE2 LIGHT 1 GENERATION X 12 56.25 7.736

2 MILLENNIAL 40 54.65 9.206

SCALE3TEMPERATURE 1 GENERATION X 12 55.67 11.292

2 MILLENNIAL 40 58.62 9.086

SCALE4 DESIGN 1 GENERATION X 12 49.92 11.572

2 MILLENNIAL 40 51.68 8.456

SCALES MOTIVATION 1 GENERATION X 12 52.08 7.440

2 MILLENNIAL 40 51.95 7.799

SCALES PERSISTENT 1 GENERATION X 12 54.92 7.354

2 MILLENNIAL 40 52.98 5.503

SCALE7 RESPONSIBLE 1 GENERATION X 12 50.17 8.963

2 MILLENNIAL 40 44.85 9.236

SCALES STRUCTURE 1 GENERATION X 12 57.58 7.845

2 MILLENNIAL 40 60.80 6.438

SCALE9 ALONE-PEERS 1 GENERATION X 12 55.58 14.526

2 MILLENNIAL 40 55.48 10.863

SCALE1 0 AUTHORilY 1 GENERATION X 12 59.67 8.184

FIGURES 2 MILLENNIAL 40 54.85 7.109

SCALE11 SEVERAL WAYS 1 GENERATION X 12 47.25 7.653

2 MILLENNIAL 40 49.90 6.259

SCALE12 AUDITORY 1 GENERATION X 12 52.75 10.481

2 MILLENNIAL 40 53.90 11.015

SCALE13 VISUAL 1 GENERATION X 12 48.08 6.921

2 MILLENNIAL 40 50.78 7.751


Table 1 Continued

PEPS 20 Subscale Means for Generation X (n = 12) and Millennials (n = 40)

PEPS Subscale COHORT Mean Std. Deviation n

SCALE14 TACTILE 1 GENERATION X 12 53.50 12.435

2 MILLENNIAL 40 55.90 7.669

SCALE15 KINESTHETIC 1 GENERATION X 12 57.42 5.334

2 MILLENNIAL 40 56.18 4.471

SCALE16 INTAKE 1 GENERATION X 12 60.50 6.922

2 MILLENNIAL 40 57.68 9.926

SCALE17 TIME OF DAY 1 GENERATION X 12 50.75 9.928

2 MILLENNIAL 40 43.05 11.408

SCALE18 LATE MORNING 1 GENERATION X 12 47.92 11.572

2 MILLENNIAL 40 47.88 7.997

SCALE19 AFTERNOON 1 GENERATION X 12 54.42 14.563

2 MILLENNIAL 40 61.85 9.994

''--"' SCALE20 NEEDS MOBILITY 1 GENERATION X 12 52.33 7.499

2 MILLENNIAL 40 54.95 6.397

Note: Generation X students were born between 1961 and 1981; Millennia! students were

born between 1982 and 2003.

•

PEPS ofUndergraduate Nursing Students 30 Table 2

PEPS 20 Subscale t-Test for Generation X (n = 12) and Millennials (n = 40)

t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

SCALE1 NOISE LEVEL 1.629 50 0.110 5.067

SCALE2 LIGHT 0.546 50 0.587 1.600

SCALE3TEMPERATURE -0.935 50 0.354 -2.958

SCALE4 DESIGN -0.579 50 0.565 -1.758

SCALES MOTIVATION 0.052 50 0.958 0.133

SCALES PERSISTENT 0.990 50 0.327 1.942

SCALE7 RESPONSIBLE 1.760 50 0.084 5.317

SCALES STRUCTURE -1.443 50 0.155 -3.217

SCALE9 ALONE-PEERS 0.028 50 0.978 0.108

SCALE10 AUTHORITY FIGURES 1.989 50 *0.052 4.817

SCALE11 SEVERAL WAYS -1.222 50 0.228 -2.650

SCALE12 AUDITORY -0.321 50 0.750 -1.150

SCALE13 VISUAL -1.079 50 0.286 -2.692

SCALE14 TACTILE -0.816 50 0.418 -2.400

SCALE15 KINESTHETIC 0.807 50 0.424 1.242

SCALE161NTAKE 0.918 50 0.363 2.825

SCALE17 TIME OF DAY 2.108 50 *0.040 7.700

SCALE18 LATE MORNING 0.014 50 0.989 0.042

SCALE19 AFTERNOON ·2.024 50 *0.048 7.433

SCALE20 NEEDS MOBILITY -1.195 50 0.238 -2.617

Note. All scales with equal variances assumed; * Statistically significant p = 0.05

productivity environmental preference survey (peps) of

Documents